Tryptophan

[Guest guest]

Back in the mid 1990's, I ordered Tryptophan from the UK. Unless

things have changed, it's legal to bring it in (no Rx necessary),

but illegal to sell it. I no longer have the name of the pharmacy

although I do remember they had a web site. I'm sure a search would

turn them up or possibly one of the list members in the UK knows

where you can get this. You might also contact

www.crossborderpharmacy.com out of Canada to see if they sell it.

If you don't see it on their Net list, give them a call; they have a

toll free number from the U.S.

Although the big problem came from a manufacturer in Japan who

didn't formulate things right, you are probably better advised to

find other than a veterinary source as I understand there is less

care taken with sterile preparation. Why I don't know; after all,

other animals can certainly get bacterial infections.

It amazes me that the FDA would have such a knee-jerk reaction to

one bad batch. It simply should have been recalled just like is

done with other foodstuffs or drugs in which batch lots are

defective in some way. I can think of all sorts of manufacturer

recalls like this. I wonder if one incorrectly forumlated lot of

Viagra was distributed and a few men died whether Viagra would

suddenly be banned like Tryptophan. I doubt it )

Rosemary Vernon, Editor

www.dolfzine.com

On-line Fitness

Marina del Rey, CA

IronRoses@...

http://www.chuckietechie.com

[Guest guest]

Rosemary responded to a question I posted, writing:

Although the big problem came from a manufacturer in Japan who

didn't formulate things right, you are probably better advised to

find other than a veterinary source as I understand there is less

care taken with sterile preparation. Why I don't know; after all,

other animals can certainly get bacterial infections.

my reply:

The problem was with a batch from Japan, but it was not a 'tryptophan'

problem per se: instead, it was a bad binder which allegedly made people

ill, perhaps causal to several deaths. Surely slopping science if this is

true.

Vetenary grade tryptophan is the same USP grade available from pharmacists,

the same thing we used to freely purchase over the counter. It is not

derived from animal sources, hence bacterial infections is not an issue.

Rosemary also writes:

It amazes me that the FDA would have such a knee-jerk reaction to

one bad batch. It simply should have been recalled just like is

done with other foodstuffs or drugs in which batch lots are

defective in some way. I can think of all sorts of manufacturer

recalls like this. I wonder if one incorrectly forumlated lot of

Viagra was distributed and a few men died whether Viagra would

suddenly be banned like Tryptophan. I doubt it )

I reply:

Let me preface my remarks by saying I am not an advocate of conspiracy

theories. It is maintained by some that removal of tryptophan occured

deliberately - or in strange coincidence - with Lilly's having received

approval for its Prozac. Tryptophan enhances production of serotonin, while

anti-depressants such as prozac, zoloft and others promote serotonin

re-uptake - in essence, recycling your own serotonin to target receptor

sites. Tryptophan, hence, removes the need for a reuptake drug by virtue of

providing the raw materials for producing more. It should be remembered that

until very recently Prozac was the most successful patent medicine in terms

of billions of dollars of profits for Lilly.

On the topic of re-uptake protocols, appointments of persons to FDA posts

recycles persons from certain medical schools well funded by the

pharmaceutial and food industry, and in turn some of those same persons in

time find posts within that industry. Sometimes career progression, when

tracked, looks like incest! Critics refer to this situation as a good old

boy system detrimental to the public interest while highly beneficial to

private interests forming a cartel.

Tryptophan is an essential amino acid. In Middle Eastern cultures, those

making abundant use of yogurt and kefir, it is insisted that drowsiness and

sleep follows eating those foods - which are high in tryptophan. So is

turkey.

As I said, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories. Having observed the FDA for

more than 40 years, we note specious, at times purely stupid, pseudoscience.

It is hoped that The Skeptical Inquirer grows tired of childish psychism,

instead turning its inquiring spotlight on the FDA. Of course, that might

lead to its persecution by that august body of occasional science.

regards,

Ken O'Neill

Tucson, Arizona

[Guest guest]

Rosemary responded to a question I posted, writing:

Although the big problem came from a manufacturer in Japan who

didn't formulate things right, you are probably better advised to

find other than a veterinary source as I understand there is less

care taken with sterile preparation. Why I don't know; after all,

other animals can certainly get bacterial infections.

my reply:

The problem was with a batch from Japan, but it was not a 'tryptophan'

problem per se: instead, it was a bad binder which allegedly made people

ill, perhaps causal to several deaths. Surely slopping science if this is

true.

Vetenary grade tryptophan is the same USP grade available from pharmacists,

the same thing we used to freely purchase over the counter. It is not

derived from animal sources, hence bacterial infections is not an issue.

Rosemary also writes:

It amazes me that the FDA would have such a knee-jerk reaction to

one bad batch. It simply should have been recalled just like is

done with other foodstuffs or drugs in which batch lots are

defective in some way. I can think of all sorts of manufacturer

recalls like this. I wonder if one incorrectly forumlated lot of

Viagra was distributed and a few men died whether Viagra would

suddenly be banned like Tryptophan. I doubt it )

I reply:

Let me preface my remarks by saying I am not an advocate of conspiracy

theories. It is maintained by some that removal of tryptophan occured

deliberately - or in strange coincidence - with Lilly's having received

approval for its Prozac. Tryptophan enhances production of serotonin, while

anti-depressants such as prozac, zoloft and others promote serotonin

re-uptake - in essence, recycling your own serotonin to target receptor

sites. Tryptophan, hence, removes the need for a reuptake drug by virtue of

providing the raw materials for producing more. It should be remembered that

until very recently Prozac was the most successful patent medicine in terms

of billions of dollars of profits for Lilly.

On the topic of re-uptake protocols, appointments of persons to FDA posts

recycles persons from certain medical schools well funded by the

pharmaceutial and food industry, and in turn some of those same persons in

time find posts within that industry. Sometimes career progression, when

tracked, looks like incest! Critics refer to this situation as a good old

boy system detrimental to the public interest while highly beneficial to

private interests forming a cartel.

Tryptophan is an essential amino acid. In Middle Eastern cultures, those

making abundant use of yogurt and kefir, it is insisted that drowsiness and

sleep follows eating those foods - which are high in tryptophan. So is

turkey.

As I said, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories. Having observed the FDA for

more than 40 years, we note specious, at times purely stupid, pseudoscience.

It is hoped that The Skeptical Inquirer grows tired of childish psychism,

instead turning its inquiring spotlight on the FDA. Of course, that might

lead to its persecution by that august body of occasional science.

regards,

Ken O'Neill

Tucson, Arizona

[Guest guest]

This article claims that the problem was neither a binder, nor

an 'incorrect formulation'. The company found a new, faster, cheaper

way to make the Tryptophan via genetically engineered bacteria, and

put it on the market without proper safety testing.

http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/trypt.html

The idea that it is the Tryptophan in turkey that make Thanksgiving

meals sleep-inducing is an urban myth. In order for Tryp to have

that effect it must be taken in isolation, on an empty stomach, or at

least in the absence of other aminos. Thanksgiving meals cause

drowsiness because of overeating - especially carbs - which causes an

insulin spike.

I dispute the idea that a pure, concentrated amino acid is somehow

more 'natural' or less of a drug than other pharmaceuticals.

Anything which is processed, concentrated, and taken to achieve a

deliberate physiological alteration is a drug. The lesson I take

from the Tryptophan incident is quite different from yours. Namely,

just because a supplement/drug is supposedly more " natural " doesn't

mean it's harmless. 37 people died, and 1500 more were injured in

this instance, in part because this substance wasn't subjected to the

same quality control and regulatory standards of pharmaceuticals. In

this sense, supplements are actually MORE dangerous than 'drugs'.

All drugs, no matter how natural, come with risks - both known and

unknown. Risks can come in the form of undiscovered long term

effects, unknown idiosyncratic effects with one's own body, unknown

effects when combined with other drugs, mismanufacturing and even

tampering. They aren't candy.

I choose to avoid most of them without a compelling need for the

purported benefit, especially substances I haven't already tried. I

don't think the need for a mild muscle relaxant or sedative

qualifies - I'll stick with a couple beers or a hot bath.

Wilbanks

ville, FL

> Rosemary responded to a question I posted, writing:

>

> Although the big problem came from a manufacturer in Japan who

> didn't formulate things right, you are probably better advised to

> find other than a veterinary source as I understand there is less

> care taken with sterile preparation. Why I don't know; after all,

> other animals can certainly get bacterial infections.

>

> my reply:

>

> The problem was with a batch from Japan, but it was not

a 'tryptophan'

> problem per se: instead, it was a bad binder which allegedly made

people

> ill, perhaps causal to several deaths. Surely slopping science if

this is

> true.

>

> Vetenary grade tryptophan is the same USP grade available from

pharmacists,

> the same thing we used to freely purchase over the counter. It is

not

> derived from animal sources, hence bacterial infections is not an

issue.

>

> Rosemary also writes:

>

> It amazes me that the FDA would have such a knee-jerk reaction to

> one bad batch. It simply should have been recalled just like is

> done with other foodstuffs or drugs in which batch lots are

> defective in some way. I can think of all sorts of manufacturer

> recalls like this. I wonder if one incorrectly forumlated lot of

> Viagra was distributed and a few men died whether Viagra would

> suddenly be banned like Tryptophan. I doubt it )

>

> I reply:

>

> Let me preface my remarks by saying I am not an advocate of

conspiracy

> theories. It is maintained by some that removal of tryptophan

occured

> deliberately - or in strange coincidence - with Lilly's having

received

> approval for its Prozac. Tryptophan enhances production of

serotonin, while

> anti-depressants such as prozac, zoloft and others promote serotonin

> re-uptake - in essence, recycling your own serotonin to target

receptor

> sites. Tryptophan, hence, removes the need for a reuptake drug by

virtue of

> providing the raw materials for producing more. It should be

remembered that

> until very recently Prozac was the most successful patent medicine

in terms

> of billions of dollars of profits for Lilly.

>

> On the topic of re-uptake protocols, appointments of persons to FDA

posts

> recycles persons from certain medical schools well funded by the

> pharmaceutial and food industry, and in turn some of those same

persons in

> time find posts within that industry. Sometimes career progression,

when

> tracked, looks like incest! Critics refer to this situation as a

good old

> boy system detrimental to the public interest while highly

beneficial to

> private interests forming a cartel.

>

> Tryptophan is an essential amino acid. In Middle Eastern cultures,

those

> making abundant use of yogurt and kefir, it is insisted that

drowsiness and

> sleep follows eating those foods - which are high in tryptophan. So

is

> turkey.

>

> As I said, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories. Having observed

the FDA for

> more than 40 years, we note specious, at times purely stupid,

pseudoscience.

> It is hoped that The Skeptical Inquirer grows tired of childish

psychism,

> instead turning its inquiring spotlight on the FDA. Of course, that

might

> lead to its persecution by that august body of occasional science.

>

> regards,

>

> Ken O'Neill

> Tucson, Arizona

[Guest guest]

writes:

I dispute the idea that a pure, concentrated amino acid is somehow

more 'natural' or less of a drug than other pharmaceuticals.

Anything which is processed, concentrated, and taken to achieve a

deliberate physiological alteration is a drug. The lesson I take

from the Tryptophan incident is quite different from yours. Namely,

just because a supplement/drug is supposedly more " natural " doesn't

mean it's harmless. 37 people died, and 1500 more were injured in

this instance, in part because this substance wasn't subjected to the

same quality control and regulatory standards of pharmaceuticals. In

this sense, supplements are actually MORE dangerous than 'drugs'.

My response:

Your information on the bad batch of tryptophan's problem is illuminating;

however, I certainly didn't invoke the 'naturalistic fallacy'.

I'm glad you've reported on numbers involved in the incident. They certainly

represent a fraction of harm done by other drugs; generally, however, the

FDA tends toward recalling patent medicines which are problematic due to bad

batch controls, not banning them. Thus, we must inquire of what agenda

results in divergence of standard practices.

To the extent speaking of tryptophan as 'natural' in this context makes

sense it is because that which is natural cannot be patented, hence cannot

be controlled nor sold for a high price by pharmaceutical parasites. By

banning tryptophan rather than recalling the offending batch, pharmaceutical

companies were rewarded by now having tryptophan in their arsenal of

controlled substances - not merely FDA controlled, but more significantly

price controlled in a monopolistic manner.

writes:

All drugs, no matter how natural, come with risks - both known and

unknown. Risks can come in the form of undiscovered long term

effects, unknown idiosyncratic effects with one's own body, unknown

effects when combined with other drugs, mismanufacturing and even

tampering. They aren't candy.

I reply:

Were the consumer so protected in all cases by our beloved protector of

monopolistic interests, the FDA. Can you imagine how many popular drugs

would be unavailable were long term testing a criterion for determining

safety? How many fortunes ungathered due to long waits?

Speaking for myself, tryptophan was a good ally for most of 20 years with no

apparent debilitating effects. On the other hand, muscle relaxants I've been

foolish enough to accept on prescription basis are poison in comparison -

nasty stuff. Perhaps tryptophan is an orthomolecular approach.

Ken O'Neill

Tucson, Arizona

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

writes:

I dispute the idea that a pure, concentrated amino acid is somehow

more 'natural' or less of a drug than other pharmaceuticals.

Anything which is processed, concentrated, and taken to achieve a

deliberate physiological alteration is a drug. The lesson I take

from the Tryptophan incident is quite different from yours. Namely,

just because a supplement/drug is supposedly more " natural " doesn't

mean it's harmless. 37 people died, and 1500 more were injured in

this instance, in part because this substance wasn't subjected to the

same quality control and regulatory standards of pharmaceuticals. In

this sense, supplements are actually MORE dangerous than 'drugs'.

My response:

Your information on the bad batch of tryptophan's problem is illuminating;

however, I certainly didn't invoke the 'naturalistic fallacy'.

I'm glad you've reported on numbers involved in the incident. They certainly

represent a fraction of harm done by other drugs; generally, however, the

FDA tends toward recalling patent medicines which are problematic due to bad

batch controls, not banning them. Thus, we must inquire of what agenda

results in divergence of standard practices.

To the extent speaking of tryptophan as 'natural' in this context makes

sense it is because that which is natural cannot be patented, hence cannot

be controlled nor sold for a high price by pharmaceutical parasites. By

banning tryptophan rather than recalling the offending batch, pharmaceutical

companies were rewarded by now having tryptophan in their arsenal of

controlled substances - not merely FDA controlled, but more significantly

price controlled in a monopolistic manner.

writes:

All drugs, no matter how natural, come with risks - both known and

unknown. Risks can come in the form of undiscovered long term

effects, unknown idiosyncratic effects with one's own body, unknown

effects when combined with other drugs, mismanufacturing and even

tampering. They aren't candy.

I reply:

Were the consumer so protected in all cases by our beloved protector of

monopolistic interests, the FDA. Can you imagine how many popular drugs

would be unavailable were long term testing a criterion for determining

safety? How many fortunes ungathered due to long waits?

Speaking for myself, tryptophan was a good ally for most of 20 years with no

apparent debilitating effects. On the other hand, muscle relaxants I've been

foolish enough to accept on prescription basis are poison in comparison -

nasty stuff. Perhaps tryptophan is an orthomolecular approach.

Ken O'Neill

Tucson, Arizona

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

writes:

I dispute the idea that a pure, concentrated amino acid is somehow

more 'natural' or less of a drug than other pharmaceuticals.

Anything which is processed, concentrated, and taken to achieve a

deliberate physiological alteration is a drug. The lesson I take

from the Tryptophan incident is quite different from yours. Namely,

just because a supplement/drug is supposedly more " natural " doesn't

mean it's harmless. 37 people died, and 1500 more were injured in

this instance, in part because this substance wasn't subjected to the

same quality control and regulatory standards of pharmaceuticals. In

this sense, supplements are actually MORE dangerous than 'drugs'.

My response:

Your information on the bad batch of tryptophan's problem is illuminating;

however, I certainly didn't invoke the 'naturalistic fallacy'.

I'm glad you've reported on numbers involved in the incident. They certainly

represent a fraction of harm done by other drugs; generally, however, the

FDA tends toward recalling patent medicines which are problematic due to bad

batch controls, not banning them. Thus, we must inquire of what agenda

results in divergence of standard practices.

To the extent speaking of tryptophan as 'natural' in this context makes

sense it is because that which is natural cannot be patented, hence cannot

be controlled nor sold for a high price by pharmaceutical parasites. By

banning tryptophan rather than recalling the offending batch, pharmaceutical

companies were rewarded by now having tryptophan in their arsenal of

controlled substances - not merely FDA controlled, but more significantly

price controlled in a monopolistic manner.

writes:

All drugs, no matter how natural, come with risks - both known and

unknown. Risks can come in the form of undiscovered long term

effects, unknown idiosyncratic effects with one's own body, unknown

effects when combined with other drugs, mismanufacturing and even

tampering. They aren't candy.

I reply:

Were the consumer so protected in all cases by our beloved protector of

monopolistic interests, the FDA. Can you imagine how many popular drugs

would be unavailable were long term testing a criterion for determining

safety? How many fortunes ungathered due to long waits?

Speaking for myself, tryptophan was a good ally for most of 20 years with no

apparent debilitating effects. On the other hand, muscle relaxants I've been

foolish enough to accept on prescription basis are poison in comparison -

nasty stuff. Perhaps tryptophan is an orthomolecular approach.

Ken O'Neill

Tucson, Arizona

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

Wilbanks wrote: I'll stick with a couple beers or a hot bath.

*** Have you looked at the fine print on the back of the can and

read the chemical stew that's in that beer you're drinking?

Rosemary Vernon, Editor

www.dolfzine.com

On-line Fitness

Marina del Rey, CA

IronRoses@...

http://www.chuckietechie.com

[Guest guest]

Are you refering to the various natural products of fermentation or

preservatives? Mainstream American beers generally don't have a list

of ingredients, much less the results of a full chemical analysis on

the label. I'm sure the most mass-produced products contain

preservatives, but how much and what kind, I don't know. I haven't

been able to find this info on the web, so if you have it available,

please present it. If any of these chemicals are associated with

known adverse effects, please present that information, too.

As far as microbrewed beers go, most contain very few ingredients,

and could pass German purity standards unless they contain fruit

essence or unusual ingredients: grain, yeast, hops, and water.

Alcohol fermentation itself results in a number of other chemical

byproducts in very small amounts, but I seriously doubt these small

amounts represent even the tiniest fraction of the health risks of

the alcohol itself. Alcohol is a hazard, but a pretty well known

one - people have been drinking fermented beverages for millenia.

Wilbanks

ville, FL

I'll stick with a couple beers or a hot bath.

>

> *** Have you looked at the fine print on the back of the can and

> read the chemical stew that's in that beer you're drinking?

>

> Rosemary Vernon, Editor

> www.dolfzine.com

> On-line Fitness

>

> Marina del Rey, CA

> IronRoses@e...

> http://www.chuckietechie.com

[Guest guest]

Anyone try a tryptophan supplement to help with poor sleep? 

Thanks,

Lori

[Guest guest]

Thank you!  Maybe I'll try Melatonin again.

 

Lori

________________________________

From: SiouxiQ <siouxi_q@...>

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:37 PM

Subject: Re: Tryptophan

 

Haven't tried tryptophan but had good results with melatonin and/or valerian

tea. Might even try relaxation exercises before sleep. Meditation also has been

very helpful to quiet my mind.

>

> Anyone try a tryptophan supplement to help with poor sleep? 

>

>

> Thanks,

>

> Lori

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you! 

Hope you are well!  Miss you, Joy!

 

Lori

________________________________

From: Joy <j0yeuxx@...>

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 5:56 PM

Subject: Re: Tryptophan

 

I used to take 5-htp (that has tryptophan) and it worked well for many things

including sleep. 

 

Here's a link to a good company I buy from:

http://www.healthherbs.com/product.php?pid=8612

 

 

From: Lori G <lorig713@...>

Subject: Tryptophan

" sma friends " < >

Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 10:27 AM

Anyone try a tryptophan supplement to help with poor sleep? 

Thanks,

Lori